Traditionalist leader is called to attend talks with Vatican officials

By Carol GlatzCatholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The head of a group of traditionalist Catholics will meet with the Vatican Sept. 14 to continue a series of doctrinal discussions.

The Vatican confirmed Aug. 23 that Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Society of St. Pius X, will travel to Rome in mid-September to meet with U.S. Cardinal William J. Levada, the head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The superior of the society in Germany, Father Franz Schmidberger, said on the group's website that the meeting would discuss the results of doctrinal dialogues from the past two years.

The priest, who is not expected to attend the September meeting, said the discussions will focus on the society's "point of view of canon law," adding that the atmosphere of previous talks had been "very good."...

« Last Edit: August 28, 2011, 05:38:13 PM by Robb »

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

Most interesting would be the type of coffee and donuts served at said meeting. Or will they serve more continental pastries as food? Would they also serve tea? I'm not sure, but regardless, meetings of this type, regardless of who is hosting them, usually only resolve in handshakes and hopefully a decent luncheon. People like meetings, I don't know why, why can't people have one big meeting and resolve things, anything, instead of having tons of meetings and wasting precious oil flying to them?

Most interesting would be the type of coffee and donuts served at said meeting. Or will they serve more continental pastries as food? Would they also serve tea? I'm not sure, but regardless, meetings of this type, regardless of who is hosting them, usually only resolve in handshakes and hopefully a decent luncheon. People like meetings, I don't know why, why can't people have one big meeting and resolve things, anything, instead of having tons of meetings and wasting precious oil flying to them?

Your idea is a good one. I'd like to see it applied to the Orthodox-Catholic committees and meetings. Why not have one big Orthodox=Catholic meeting and resolve everything, rather than drawing things out over hundreds and hundreds of years?

I honestly don't hold out much hope for any type of reconciliation. The SSPX has stated again and again that they will not accept the reforms of Vatican II or even a more conservative interpretation of them by the Vatican. They only want the repeal of that Council and a return to the pre concillior, Thomastic, integrist form of Catholicism to which they still cling. I highly doubt that the Vatican is just going to jettison decades of theological, liturgical, and moral developments in order to appease a small group of dissidents who, outside of France really don't amount to more then a hill of beans in the worldwide Catholic communion.

But who know for sure?

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

The Church should do all it can for all in the Catholic communion, even those who are small in number. The FSSP was first comprised of those who left the FSSPX after the excommunications in the late 80's. The Vatican more or less has turned the ear and eye away from them. You won't hear an FSSP priest denounce VII from the pulpit...but you also won't hear one praise it. Most of the priests in the FSSP refuse to say the Novus Ordo, and yet they are still fully in communion. I'm not sure if there is a better way to reject VII than that. My point is, I am very hopeful that the SSPX will be in full communion (though it may already be), and I can see how they would be allowed to. If Pope Benedict XVI were not the current Pope, I'm not sure this would even be a possibility. He has always been sympathetic to traditionalists and Lefebvre supporters.

If they are "allowed" back in the Church, what does that say about the Vatican? Formally accepting a group that regards the Vatican as in error, hmmmm...

Indeed the traditional societies which are already "in" the Church are allowed to ignore Vatican II. And why not? It was a "pastoral" council (Paul VI's words) which made no dogmatic definitions. Though some think the jury is still out on it, in their view it was a pastoral disaster.* I'm inclined to agree with them.

"The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet so many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of super-dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

"Not all valid councils, after being tested by the facts of history, have shown themselves to be useful councils; in the final analysis, all that was left of some was a great nothing."Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

*Of course one of the most disastrous pastoral results of this merely pastoral Council was the noxious idea that it had changed the Catholic Church's teachings and even identity---as witnessed by Robb's comment above.

Indeed the traditional societies which are already "in" the Church are allowed to ignore Vatican II. And why not? It was a "pastoral" council (Paul VI's words) which made no dogmatic definitions. Though some think the jury is still out on it, in their view it was a pastoral disaster.* I'm inclined to agree with them.

"The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet so many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of super-dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

"Not all valid councils, after being tested by the facts of history, have shown themselves to be useful councils; in the final analysis, all that was left of some was a great nothing."Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

*Of course one of the most disastrous pastoral results of this merely pastoral Council was the noxious idea that it had changed the Catholic Church's teachings and even identity---as witnessed by Robb's comment above.

LOL. Wasn't that the lesson, nay dogma, it taught?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The Church should do all it can for all in the Catholic communion, even those who are small in number. The FSSP was first comprised of those who left the FSSPX after the excommunications in the late 80's. The Vatican more or less has turned the ear and eye away from them. You won't hear an FSSP priest denounce VII from the pulpit...but you also won't hear one praise it. Most of the priests in the FSSP refuse to say the Novus Ordo, and yet they are still fully in communion. I'm not sure if there is a better way to reject VII than that. My point is, I am very hopeful that the SSPX will be in full communion (though it may already be), and I can see how they would be allowed to. If Pope Benedict XVI were not the current Pope, I'm not sure this would even be a possibility. He has always been sympathetic to traditionalists and Lefebvre supporters.

If they are "allowed" back in the Church, what does that say about the Vatican? Formally accepting a group that regards the Vatican as in error, hmmmm...

how are said groups going to justify formally accepting communion with a Vatican they regard in error?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I think you EO are smart to be very careful about calling a general council.

My one hope is that the post-Vatican II disaster will provide the opportunity to finally settle the Modernist crisis which was simmering for a very long time before. You've got to drain the pus before you heal the wound.

Most of the priests in the FSSP refuse to say the Novus Ordo, and yet they are still fully in communion.

Are those priests allowed to work in regular diocesean parishes?

Yes, but under the diocesan bishops as opposed to "independent" bishops like in the SSPX, SSPV, etc. Hence, they can't be very outspoken of the diocese or its practices (VII). Most bishops that allow FSSP priests are on the conservative side anyway, so it usually isn't an issue. Most work in a parish with regular diocesan priests, but there are several parishes run solely by FSSP priests.

The Church should do all it can for all in the Catholic communion, even those who are small in number. The FSSP was first comprised of those who left the FSSPX after the excommunications in the late 80's. The Vatican more or less has turned the ear and eye away from them. You won't hear an FSSP priest denounce VII from the pulpit...but you also won't hear one praise it. Most of the priests in the FSSP refuse to say the Novus Ordo, and yet they are still fully in communion. I'm not sure if there is a better way to reject VII than that. My point is, I am very hopeful that the SSPX will be in full communion (though it may already be), and I can see how they would be allowed to. If Pope Benedict XVI were not the current Pope, I'm not sure this would even be a possibility. He has always been sympathetic to traditionalists and Lefebvre supporters.

If they are "allowed" back in the Church, what does that say about the Vatican? Formally accepting a group that regards the Vatican as in error, hmmmm...

how are said groups going to justify formally accepting communion with a Vatican they regard in error?

It isn't really the Vatican they are looking for communion with, but the Pope. Its a touchy situation for them (meaning former SSPX priests), so I'm sure they are biting the bullet to some extent. They must see enough good/promise in the Vatican and the Pope, despite those they believe are in error.

I think you EO are smart to be very careful about calling a general council.

My one hope is that the post-Vatican II disaster will provide the opportunity to finally settle the Modernist crisis which was simmering for a very long time before. You've got to drain the pus before you heal the wound.

let's hope so, though not everything Vatican II did (e.g. breaking the monopoly of Latin in services) was bad.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The Church should do all it can for all in the Catholic communion, even those who are small in number. The FSSP was first comprised of those who left the FSSPX after the excommunications in the late 80's. The Vatican more or less has turned the ear and eye away from them. You won't hear an FSSP priest denounce VII from the pulpit...but you also won't hear one praise it. Most of the priests in the FSSP refuse to say the Novus Ordo, and yet they are still fully in communion. I'm not sure if there is a better way to reject VII than that. My point is, I am very hopeful that the SSPX will be in full communion (though it may already be), and I can see how they would be allowed to. If Pope Benedict XVI were not the current Pope, I'm not sure this would even be a possibility. He has always been sympathetic to traditionalists and Lefebvre supporters.

If they are "allowed" back in the Church, what does that say about the Vatican? Formally accepting a group that regards the Vatican as in error, hmmmm...

how are said groups going to justify formally accepting communion with a Vatican they regard in error?

It isn't really the Vatican they are looking for communion with, but the Pope. Its a touchy situation for them (meaning former SSPX priests), so I'm sure they are biting the bullet to some extent. They must see enough good/promise in the Vatican and the Pope, despite those they believe are in error.

isn't SSPX sede vancantish?

« Last Edit: August 29, 2011, 12:24:02 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I honestly don't hold out much hope for any type of reconciliation. The SSPX has stated again and again that they will not accept the reforms of Vatican II or even a more conservative interpretation of them by the Vatican. They only want the repeal of that Council and a return to the pre concillior, Thomastic, integrist form of Catholicism to which they still cling. I highly doubt that the Vatican is just going to jettison decades of theological, liturgical, and moral developments in order to appease a small group of dissidents who, outside of France really don't amount to more then a hill of beans in the worldwide Catholic communion.

But who know for sure?

But if they allowed the Eastern Catholics to keep their theology as per the Union of Brest, they why would they not allow the same for the SSPX?

I think you EO are smart to be very careful about calling a general council.

My one hope is that the post-Vatican II disaster will provide the opportunity to finally settle the Modernist crisis which was simmering for a very long time before. You've got to drain the pus before you heal the wound.

let's hope so, though not everything Vatican II did (e.g. breaking the monopoly of Latin in services) was bad.

The Church should do all it can for all in the Catholic communion, even those who are small in number. The FSSP was first comprised of those who left the FSSPX after the excommunications in the late 80's. The Vatican more or less has turned the ear and eye away from them. You won't hear an FSSP priest denounce VII from the pulpit...but you also won't hear one praise it. Most of the priests in the FSSP refuse to say the Novus Ordo, and yet they are still fully in communion. I'm not sure if there is a better way to reject VII than that. My point is, I am very hopeful that the SSPX will be in full communion (though it may already be), and I can see how they would be allowed to. If Pope Benedict XVI were not the current Pope, I'm not sure this would even be a possibility. He has always been sympathetic to traditionalists and Lefebvre supporters.

If they are "allowed" back in the Church, what does that say about the Vatican? Formally accepting a group that regards the Vatican as in error, hmmmm...

how are said groups going to justify formally accepting communion with a Vatican they regard in error?

It isn't really the Vatican they are looking for communion with, but the Pope. Its a touchy situation for them (meaning former SSPX priests), so I'm sure they are biting the bullet to some extent. They must see enough good/promise in the Vatican and the Pope, despite those they believe are in error.

isn't SSPX sede vancantish?

The SSPX has prayers for the Pope at every Mass. For them, the Pope is like their father, but a father who has strayed a bit from the course.

I think you EO are smart to be very careful about calling a general council.

My one hope is that the post-Vatican II disaster will provide the opportunity to finally settle the Modernist crisis which was simmering for a very long time before. You've got to drain the pus before you heal the wound.

let's hope so, though not everything Vatican II did (e.g. breaking the monopoly of Latin in services) was bad.

Indeed, there had been movement toward the vernacular for decades before the Council. For example, Rome gave permission for Catholics in Germany to use some German back in the 1940s. The Council document, in allowing for some (not all) vernacular, was only confirming a movement that had been going on since the 19th century.

Total vernacularization, with crappy inaccurate translations? Not good, but the new accurate English translation is almost here---England and Wales is instituting it this Sunday. We in the USA will have to wait till November.

Indeed, I have been to a number of SSPX chapels, and they all have large portraits of Benedict XVI in the narthex.

I just got an e-mail from them reporting that Pope Benedict XVI has just made St. John of Avila a Doctor of the Church. John of Avila was canonized by Paul VI in 1970.

Doesn't sound too sedevacantist to me.

The "Traditio.com" folks, however, are. If you notice, they call the Holy Father "Benedict-Ratzinger" and most priests "Novus Ordo presbyters." At the local SSPX chapel here, one of the priests was ordained in the Novus Ordo rite (and not re-ordained), and the head priest of the chapel has a policy of denying Holy Communion to any layperson who refuses to accept that this priest's Masses are valid.

I think you EO are smart to be very careful about calling a general council.

My one hope is that the post-Vatican II disaster will provide the opportunity to finally settle the Modernist crisis which was simmering for a very long time before. You've got to drain the pus before you heal the wound.

let's hope so, though not everything Vatican II did (e.g. breaking the monopoly of Latin in services) was bad.

Knowing latiin is a great help in learning many other languages.

so's Greek. Your point?

You assUme, of course, they understood the Latin.

If I want language instruction, I'll go to Berlitz, not the Tiber.

« Last Edit: August 29, 2011, 01:16:54 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I think you EO are smart to be very careful about calling a general council.

My one hope is that the post-Vatican II disaster will provide the opportunity to finally settle the Modernist crisis which was simmering for a very long time before. You've got to drain the pus before you heal the wound.

let's hope so, though not everything Vatican II did (e.g. breaking the monopoly of Latin in services) was bad.

Knowing latiin is a great help in learning many other languages.

so's Greek. Your point?

You assUme, of course, they understood the Latin.

If I want language instruction, I'll go to Berlitz, not the Tiber.

Well, it has been known for a long time that classics majors perform considerably better than modern language majors. In 1997 Latin students had a mean score of 647 on the SAT,142 points higher than the national average of 505. Furthermore, Latin students outperformed students of all other languages.

Never thought someone would use SAT scores to argue for a Latin mass. Only on the internets!

It provides solid and irrefutable quantitative proof of the value of studying Latin over modern languages.

It provides correlative evidence that students who take Latin tend to be smart.

Yeah, well, of course you can go in circles arguing about this, but it remains a fact that students who study latin, consistently outperform students who study modern languages (to the exclusion of latin). And there are other reasons also why it is advantageous to study Latin such as for example:Knowledge of Latin increases English vocabulary.Knowing Latin makes it easier to learn the grammar andvocabulary of the modern Romance languages.The cultural experience of the ancient roman world is relevant to us today.

Vatican II most certainly did change much about the Catholic Church placing new emphasis on the liturgy and communal participation in it. V II also was not just a pastoral council, but did define at least two dogma's. The whole myths that Vatican II was just pastoral and thus can be routinely ignored by the RC faithful is a deception which is fostered by the disgruntled traditionalsit and their ilk and does not hold true to Catholic teaching. No RC is free to ignore or reject the decisions of any ecumenical council, even if most of it is pastoral in nature.

Also I've heard FSSP and other "approved" clergy openly criticize Vatican II from their pulpits. People like this love to have the official rubber stamp of approval from Rome for themselves as justification of their "communion" with the Vatican, yet they freely criticize and backstab their benefactors all the time. What kind of "loyalty" is this?

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

Here is an article (From Sedevacantist group, but with good arguments made) That RC's MUST accept Vatican II and all her decrees as legitimate or they are not true Catholics. Any group, such as the SSPX which does not accept Vatican II or cast doubt or suspicion on its teachings is not or never will be considered as truly Catholic. The Pope of Rome could validate and re validate them a hundred thousand times over, yet they would still be outside the universal Catholic communion if they did not accept and obey the theology, liturgy, and morality of Vatican Council II

Paul VI, “Papal” Brief declaring Council Closed, Dec. 8, 1965:“At last all which regards the holy Ecumenical Council has, with the help of God, beenaccomplished and ALL THE CONSTITUTIONS, DECREES, DECLARATIONS, ANDVOTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DELIBERATION OF THE SYNOD ANDPROMULGATED BY US. Therefore, we decided to close for all intents and purposes,WITH OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, this same Ecumenical Council called by ourpredecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continuedby us after his death. WE DECIDE MOREOVER THAT ALL THAT HAS BEENESTABLISHED SYNODALLY IS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THEFAITHFUL, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… WE HAVEAPPROVED AND ESTABLISHED THESE THINGS, DECREEING THAT THEPRESENT LETTERS ARE AND REMAIN STABLE AND VALID, AND ARE TOHAVE LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS, so that they be disseminated and obtain full andcomplete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concernor may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, ALLEFFORTS CONTRARY TO THESE THINGS BY WHOEVER OR WHATEVERAUTHORITY, KNOWINGLY OR IN IGNORANCE, BE INVALID ANDWORTHLESS FROM NOW ON. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the]ring of the fisherman, December 8… the year 1965, the third year of our Pontificate.”

« Last Edit: August 29, 2011, 05:39:15 PM by Robb »

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

Here is an article (From Sedevacantist group, but with good arguments made) That RC's MUST accept Vatican II and all her decrees as legitimate or they are not true Catholics. Any group, such as the SSPX which does not accept Vatican II or cast doubt or suspicion on its teachings is not or never will be considered as truly Catholic. The Pope of Rome could validate and re validate them a hundred thousand times over, yet they would still be outside the universal Catholic communion if they did not accept and obey the theology, liturgy, and morality of Vatican Council II

Paul VI, “Papal” Brief declaring Council Closed, Dec. 8, 1965:“At last all which regards the holy Ecumenical Council has, with the help of God, beenaccomplished and ALL THE CONSTITUTIONS, DECREES, DECLARATIONS, ANDVOTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DELIBERATION OF THE SYNOD ANDPROMULGATED BY US. Therefore, we decided to close for all intents and purposes,WITH OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, this same Ecumenical Council called by ourpredecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continuedby us after his death. WE DECIDE MOREOVER THAT ALL THAT HAS BEENESTABLISHED SYNODALLY IS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THEFAITHFUL, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… WE HAVEAPPROVED AND ESTABLISHED THESE THINGS, DECREEING THAT THEPRESENT LETTERS ARE AND REMAIN STABLE AND VALID, AND ARE TOHAVE LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS, so that they be disseminated and obtain full andcomplete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concernor may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, ALLEFFORTS CONTRARY TO THESE THINGS BY WHOEVER OR WHATEVERAUTHORITY, KNOWINGLY OR IN IGNORANCE, BE INVALID ANDWORTHLESS FROM NOW ON. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the]ring of the fisherman, December 8… the year 1965, the third year of our Pontificate.”

as a question, do Catholics have to accept religiously and faithfully everything that the Pope says and does, such as for example, kissing the Koran? How many times a day do you follow the example of the Pope and bow down and kiss the Koran?

I honestly don't hold out much hope for any type of reconciliation. The SSPX has stated again and again that they will not accept the reforms of Vatican II or even a more conservative interpretation of them by the Vatican. They only want the repeal of that Council which

And good for them. Vatican II was horrible mistake that turned the Catholic Church into a joke. I used to be a RC but the crappy new Mass and heterodoxy from the pulpit (even by Catholic heresy standards) drove me into the local SSPX Chapel and that eventually led me to Orthodoxy. I became Orthodox because I felt after much study and prayer that the Catholic Church has throughout history just toyed around with doctrine. Pope has contradicted Pope, council contradicted council all leading up to the hippie flower power mess of Vatican II. Hopefully the RC and SSPX will get together and reject all of the RC heresies through the centuries starting with the Filioque.

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:let him be anathema. Return to Table of Contents

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

Here is an article (From Sedevacantist group, but with good arguments made) That RC's MUST accept Vatican II and all her decrees as legitimate or they are not true Catholics. Any group, such as the SSPX which does not accept Vatican II or cast doubt or suspicion on its teachings is not or never will be considered as truly Catholic. The Pope of Rome could validate and re validate them a hundred thousand times over, yet they would still be outside the universal Catholic communion if they did not accept and obey the theology, liturgy, and morality of Vatican Council II

Paul VI, “Papal” Brief declaring Council Closed, Dec. 8, 1965:“At last all which regards the holy Ecumenical Council has, with the help of God, beenaccomplished and ALL THE CONSTITUTIONS, DECREES, DECLARATIONS, ANDVOTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DELIBERATION OF THE SYNOD ANDPROMULGATED BY US. Therefore, we decided to close for all intents and purposes,WITH OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, this same Ecumenical Council called by ourpredecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continuedby us after his death. WE DECIDE MOREOVER THAT ALL THAT HAS BEENESTABLISHED SYNODALLY IS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THEFAITHFUL, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… WE HAVEAPPROVED AND ESTABLISHED THESE THINGS, DECREEING THAT THEPRESENT LETTERS ARE AND REMAIN STABLE AND VALID, AND ARE TOHAVE LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS, so that they be disseminated and obtain full andcomplete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concernor may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, ALLEFFORTS CONTRARY TO THESE THINGS BY WHOEVER OR WHATEVERAUTHORITY, KNOWINGLY OR IN IGNORANCE, BE INVALID ANDWORTHLESS FROM NOW ON. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the]ring of the fisherman, December 8… the year 1965, the third year of our Pontificate.”

Yes but you see the Pope before him John XXIII said it was just a pastoral council. (See what I mean about contradictions ?)

Objection #1) At his speech to open Vatican II, John XXIII said that Vatican II was to be a“pastoral council.” This proves that Vatican II was not infallible!Response: This is not true. John XXIII did not say in his opening speech at the council thatVatican II was to be a pastoral council. Here is what John XXIII actually said:John XXIII, Opening Speech at Vatican II, Oct. 11, 1962: “The substance of the ancientdeposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is thelatter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everythingbeing measured in the forms and proportions OF A MAGISTERIUM WHICH ISPREDOMINANTLY PASTORAL IN CHARACTER.”9

Here we see that John XXIII did not say that Vatican II would be a pastoral council. He saidthat it would reflect the Church’s Magisterium, which is predominantly pastoral in character. So,despite the incredibly widespread myth, the truth is that John XXIII never even called Vatican II apastoral council in his opening speech. By the way, even if John XXIII had called Vatican II apastoral council in his opening speech, this wouldn’t mean that it is not infallible. To describesomething as pastoral does not mean ipso facto (by that very fact) that it’s not infallible. This isproven by John XXIII himself in the above speech when he described the Magisterium as“pastoral,” and yet it’s de fide (of the faith) that the Magisterium is infallible. Therefore, even ifJohn XXIII did describe Vatican II as a pastoral council (which he did not) this would not provethat it is not infallible.

« Last Edit: August 29, 2011, 06:13:43 PM by Robb »

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

1 The Pope can be judged by no man on earth2 THE ROMAN CHURCH HAS NEVER ERRED AND CAN NEVER ERR UNTIL THE END OF TIME (though JPII apologized for everything and anything the Church did)3 He can depose Kings and emperors and absolve their subjects allegiance to the temporal power.

1 was a to assert himself over councils before Gregory VII councils had final authority and could depose Popes.

2 if this be the case was not the Church right in saying that outside the Holy Roman Church there is no salvation? How about the encyclicals that say that my Church the Orthodox are not true Churches this was said as late as Pius XI. What about all the encyclicals that condemned ecumenism, liberalism, religious liberty, or any of the other things in Pius IX's syllabus of errors? Or how about Pius X's encyclical Pascendi. Pascendi and the Syllabus condemn all that was done at Vatican II. THen Fr. Ratzinger went so far as to call the council decrees a "counter syllabus". But wait I thought the church could never err until the end of time. Was Vatican II right or Gregory the VII and Pius IX and Pius X in their encyclicals?

3 this was mere politics as the Pope was having a hissy fit with the current Holy Roman emperor.

In all of this we see the folly of Vatican II and the RC structure in general.

Indeed the traditional societies which are already "in" the Church are allowed to ignore Vatican II. And why not? It was a "pastoral" council (Paul VI's words) which made no dogmatic definitions. Though some think the jury is still out on it, in their view it was a pastoral disaster.* I'm inclined to agree with them.

"The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet so many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of super-dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

"Not all valid councils, after being tested by the facts of history, have shown themselves to be useful councils; in the final analysis, all that was left of some was a great nothing."Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

*Of course one of the most disastrous pastoral results of this merely pastoral Council was the noxious idea that it had changed the Catholic Church's teachings and even identity---as witnessed by Robb's comment above.

This ^

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Indeed the traditional societies which are already "in" the Church are allowed to ignore Vatican II. And why not? It was a "pastoral" council (Paul VI's words) which made no dogmatic definitions. Though some think the jury is still out on it, in their view it was a pastoral disaster.* I'm inclined to agree with them.

"The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet so many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of super-dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

"Not all valid councils, after being tested by the facts of history, have shown themselves to be useful councils; in the final analysis, all that was left of some was a great nothing."Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

*Of course one of the most disastrous pastoral results of this merely pastoral Council was the noxious idea that it had changed the Catholic Church's teachings and even identity---as witnessed by Robb's comment above.

This ^

Well its up to the Pope to interpret the Council. Just because he hints that its been misinterpreted does not mean that he wants to completely overhull it or do away with its reforms entirely. Maybe he wants to tinker with it here and there, but I highly doubt that the Council and its spirit will ever entirely depart from us (Thank God). Also If some past Pope seems to have issued statements in the past that contradict what the RCC teaches now then too bad. Things change so get over it. I can promise you that this saint would have spoken differently if he were alive today (If not then I highly doubt that he would have become saint by today's standards since his writings would have conflicted the official teachings and pastoral actions of the RCC). I don't agree with everything that has occurred in the wake of the Council, especially the hazardous spirit of iconcoclams which has destroyed or changed much of the beauty that was pre councillor Catholicism, but I rejoice in the death of excessive legalism and the fortress mentality which prevailed for a millennium in our faith. That can stay dead and buried, world without end as far as I'm concerned.

Also I notice that nobody actually trid to refute the Papal quotes from the article that I posted, just that same old line that the present Pope spoke in one of his general audiences is rehashed time and again by the same people in these debates to make their point. I would ask, do the statements of a Pope held during an ecumenical council hold more weight then those spoken by him in a non councilor audience? I would think that they do, but some will do whatever it takes to forward their agenda's.

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

Bah! Whatever fallible or not. The decrees from the council counteract what St Pius X wrote in his encyclicle Pascendi and the Syllabus of errors of Blessed Pius IX. So who is right?

Can't they all be wrong?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Indeed the traditional societies which are already "in" the Church are allowed to ignore Vatican II. And why not? It was a "pastoral" council (Paul VI's words) which made no dogmatic definitions. Though some think the jury is still out on it, in their view it was a pastoral disaster.* I'm inclined to agree with them.

"The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet so many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of super-dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

"Not all valid councils, after being tested by the facts of history, have shown themselves to be useful councils; in the final analysis, all that was left of some was a great nothing."Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

*Of course one of the most disastrous pastoral results of this merely pastoral Council was the noxious idea that it had changed the Catholic Church's teachings and even identity---as witnessed by Robb's comment above.

This ^

Well its up to the Pope to interpret the Council. Just because he hints that its been misinterpreted does not mean that he wants to completely overhull it or do away with its reforms entirely. Maybe he wants to tinker with it here and there, but I highly doubt that the Council and its spirit will ever entirely depart from us (Thank God). Also If some past Pope seems to have issued statements in the past that contradict what the RCC teaches now then too bad. Things change so get over it. I can promise you that this saint would have spoken differently if he were alive today (If not then I highly doubt that he would have become saint by today's standards since his writings would have conflicted the official teachings and pastoral actions of the RCC). I don't agree with everything that has occurred in the wake of the Council, especially the hazardous spirit of iconcoclams which has destroyed or changed much of the beauty that was pre councillor Catholicism, but I rejoice in the death of excessive legalism and the fortress mentality which prevailed for a millennium in our faith. That can stay dead and buried, world without end as far as I'm concerned.

I can't recall a council where the Pope's interpretation, or even any interpretation, was needed. The language was always straightforward and concise. You know the council has issues when the documents must be studied by "theologians" to determine what its true meaning is.

"Things change, get over it." Says the Catholic to the Orthodox...lol.

"Things change, get over it." Says the Catholic to the Orthodox...lol.

Hey, I didn't do it. It was done some 50 years ago and I'm just left holding the bag. If the Vatican II had never occurred then we wouldn't be holding this debate, but it did and I highly doubt that the vast majority of the worlds RC's are going to tolerate turning back the clock in order to appease a small group of dissatisfied traditionalist. If it wasn't for the Council then God only knows where I'd be right now (Perhaps a hippie smoking grass and worshipping the Sun)? The Council saved me so I just feel that I owe it a debt of gratitude and must speak up from time to time to those who would malign it as "un Catholic".

« Last Edit: August 29, 2011, 10:12:12 PM by Robb »

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

"Things change, get over it." Says the Catholic to the Orthodox...lol.

Hey, I didn't do it. It was done some 50 years ago and I'm just left holding the bag. If the Vatican II had never occurred then we wouldn't be holding this debate, but it did and I highly doubt that the vast majority of the worlds RC's are going to tolerate turning back the clock in order to appease a small group of dissatisfied traditionalist. If it wasn't for the Council then God only knows where I'd be right now (Perhaps a hippie smoking grass and worshipping the Sun)? The Council saved me so I just feel that I owe it a debt of gratitude and must speak up from time to time to those who would malign it as "un Catholic".

No no, I understand where you were coming from, I just thought it would be a "good" response to just about every other issue on this board (filioque, purgatory, etc). Remember, it wasn't the council that saved you, it was Jesus Christ! Do you not have faith that Christ would've called you with or without the council? God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost have not changed. Praise be to Him for calling you home!

Does that ever seem like conditional Catholicism? The council has I'm sure helped a lot of converts, but many huddle around the council as if it is the only reason they are Catholics, as if without it they would've been better as a Protestant/anything else. This only echos exactly what many [traditionalists] say - watering down of the faith, accepting Protestantism, etc. See Scott Hahn or Jeff Cavins. EDIT I'm not implying you're a convert.